Ashes - memories

[PY]

So he was a 'choker' then as choker can be defined as someone who doesn't have the mental capability to deal with the job at hand which he didn't do on a consistent basis because of his mental issues.

 

[badgerhair]

Is Richard defending the indefensible again? Go on. He's said the Ram... something word again in the same sentence as 'good' or 'class' instead of 'mediocre' or 'choker'.

Ramprakash is an excellent batsman. (So is Graeme Hick, for that matter). And Ramprakash's batting exudes class. Anyone who's watched him take international bowlers apart in county cricket knows that. That is why they kept picking him, and why more argument and debate was had over him in selection meetings than any other player in David Graveney's chairmanship.

What the selectors couldn't fathom - in common with large numbers of other interested English cricket-watchers - was why he choked in Test cricket, because there was no apparent rhyme or reason about it. He played significantly good innings in Tests just often enough for it to be obvious that he didn't lack the technique or ability to score good runs against top bowling when he was in the right frame of mind. But the key, as is now apparent but wasn't several years ago, was that "right frame of mind". The only reason I'd quibble with "choker" is that I tend to restrict choking to instances where people fail despite the odds being at least slightly in their favour, and there were some occasions when Ramprakash failed in difficult circumstances as well as easy ones.

Given the level of competition from other English batsmen during the 90s, I think the actions of the selectors in picking him were entirely defensible.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Richard]

1. Ramprakash's record in tests is utterly mediocre.

Even without going into the fact that it's not as simple as that, all that says is that he was a mediocre Test batsman, not a mediocre batsman anywhere else.

2. Not having the temperament for test cricket = choking.

No, not having the temperament for test cricket = not having the temperament for test cricket. Choking is an entirely different matter.

3. You continue to defend the indefensible, but don't let that stop you. I could do with a laugh.

If he was indefensible what I say would be untrue.
It's not.

 

[Richard]

So he was a 'choker' then as choker can be defined as someone who doesn't have the mental capability to deal with the job at hand which he didn't do on a consistent basis because of his mental issues.

I'd define it as someone, or multiple some people, who doesn't\don't manage to finish the big jobs - eg South Africa in WC99 being the most glaring example.

 

[PY]

I'd define any Ashes series as a pretty big job. And playing for your country shouldn't be laughed at in any way in terms of size of job.

I agree with what Mike says about how Ramps deserved to be continually picked due to competition and obvious talent but he couldn't hack it consistently at international level just because of mental issues which is as big an issue in some ways as physical talent.

 

[luckyeddie]

Richard and Rampers....

I've only ever restricted my criticism of Rampers (and Hick for that matter) to their overall test career performances, and in particular to the most important six inches in sport (between the ears).

 

[Swervy]

and in particular to the most important six inches in sport (between the ears).

unless you get hit in the box

 

[PY]

unless you get hit in the box

 

[luckyeddie]

unless you get hit in the box

<quack> Leave Inzy out of this. I can still remember the graphic description of how it was, er, trapped.

What do you mean, DD? What was trapped?

<quack> You know....

I don't. Please explain

<quack> Well, he was batting and he received the cruellest blow

I'm a bit naive here. You'll have to be a bit clearer.

<quack> You know that club you tried to get into last week?

"Naughty Nora's Give it One and Get Off With a Lapdancer Club?"

<quack> Yes, that one. Why didn't they let you in?

It was Members Only - and I didn't qualify

<quack> Neither did Inzy

 

[Richard]

Richard and Rampers....

I've only ever restricted my criticism of Rampers (and Hick for that matter) to their overall test career performances, and in particular to the most important six inches in sport (between the ears).

Despite the clear presence of technical deficiencies in Hick where there were none in Ramprakash...
If you've only ever restricted your criticism of Rampers to the Test level, please don't go around calling him a mediocre player.

 

[Richard]

I'd define any Ashes series as a pretty big job. And playing for your country shouldn't be laughed at in any way in terms of size of job.

Well - coincidentally far more of Ramprakash's best performances than not came in Ashes, of course.
Playing for your country shouldn't be laughed at, of course not. Don't really see what it has to do with anything, though - as far as I'm aware Ramprakash never laughed at playing for England or took it less than 100% seriously.
Indeed, according to people like Atherton and Hussain, he took it too seriously, and had he loosened-up and just batted, rather than thinking about the fact he was playing Test-cricket, he'd have done better than he ended-up doing.

 

[marc71178]

Despite the clear presence of technical deficiencies in Hick where there were none in Ramprakash...

So what's the lack of a brain then?

If you've only ever restricted your criticism of Rampers to the Test level, please don't go around calling him a mediocre player.

Why not, just because you love him doesn't mean we all have to fall in with what you want.

 

[luckyeddie]

Despite the clear presence of technical deficiencies in Hick where there were none in Ramprakash...
If you've only ever restricted your criticism of Rampers to the Test level, please don't go around calling him a mediocre player.

zzzzzzzzzzz what?

Do us a lemon, Richard. According to you McGrath is lucky and Harmison is rubbish.

Now if I suggest that Rampers is mediocre (and I really do mean in tests) and has a serious temperament problem (and once again I mean in tests) and you say he doesn't, isn't or hasn't, who has the greater credibility around here?

Truth be told, for years I WILLED Rampers to do well, because he is/was such an attractive batsman to watch. However, he has a complete mental block about playing the game at the highest level, always has had, always will have. Choker, big time.

(bless him)

 

[Richard]

So what's the lack of a brain then?

So far as I'm aware no living human being has ever lacked a brain.

Why not, just because you love him doesn't mean we all have to fall in with what you want.

No, it doesn't, it does mean you have to not go throwing around ludicrous accusations, though.

 

[Richard]

zzzzzzzzzzz what?

Do us a lemon, Richard. According to you McGrath is lucky and Harmison is rubbish.

Not as simple as that with McGrath.
And so far as Harmison is concerned... amazingly enough, there's been so much evidence to the contrary, hasn't there... still just had one good period of 7 Test-matches in his career...

 

[tooextracool]

No, it isn't an anomaly.
Nor is it 25 from the last Ashes Test, it's 28 (remembering that opening innings are utterly irrelevant); in any case I'd say it's better to take it from the second-innings of the MCG Test than the first-innings of the SCG one.
And 28 is unquestionably better than 20..

the 133 was an anomaly so it doesnt count.

That's as maybe, something I've never looked into.
I have looked into it with Ramprakash and I can say what I said without a word of a lie...

so hick too had a success period till 98.

No, it wouldn't.
I couldn't give a flying fu<k who was the batsman - my definition of a chance is the same whatever.

so if ramprakash had been dropped instead of caught, it wouldnt have been considered a chance then?

Because it's not invariably the case that the batsman has been "poor enough" to edge it; indeed, it's not always an edge, because blinding catches aren't always at slip.

no if you edge the ball to slip then you deserve to be out, whether or not the fielder takes a blinder or not.

And I can assure you categorically that they haven't, any fool can tell that almost no player will have the same amount of good and bad luck as another.

point is that all these chances even out, because you could almost every other player in the world would have his fair share of being caught by a blinder, it doesnt change the fact that it was his mistake to hit it to the fielder.

No, it shows that there are excuses which can - and will - be used. I won't exclude anything, I'll just say that certain dismissal can be excused because of such-and-such.

both of which mean the same thing.

 

[marc71178]

the 133 was an anomaly so it doesnt count.

No, TEC, anomalies only come into consideration when it's a player Richard doesn't like...

 

[luckyeddie]

Not as simple as that with McGrath.
And so far as Harmison is concerned... amazingly enough, there's been so much evidence to the contrary, hasn't there... still just had one good period of 7 Test-matches in his career...

What's Ramprakash's best period of test matches?

(damn. Doesn't this keyboard have a 'half' key?)

 

[Richard]

the 133 was an anomaly so it doesnt count.

No, it wasn't an anomaly and it does count.
If scores read, for instance: 3, 8, 15, 135, 4, 10, then the 135 could be counted as an anomaly.
If they read 14, 40, 14, 26, 40, 32, 133, 19 then the 133 is not an anomaly.

so hick too had a success period till 98.

No, he didn't, he had a dreadful time from 1996-1998.
Whether he might have done a bit better than averaging 5.77 if the pitches had been less bowler-friendly is another question.

so if ramprakash had been dropped instead of caught, it wouldnt have been considered a chance then?

If either of the catches at The Oval or Headingley had not been taken - be it because the fielder didn't reach it or only got a finger on it - they'd not have been considered chances.
And that would apply to any batsman, ever.

no if you edge the ball to slip then you deserve to be out, whether or not the fielder takes a blinder or not.

Not if you play it as well as you could expect to and the fielder takes a blinder.
That's just unlucky.

point is that all these chances even out, because you could almost every other player in the world would have his fair share of being caught by a blinder, it doesnt change the fact that it was his mistake to hit it to the fielder.

No, every other player would not have their share of being caught by blinders, or similar pieces of bad luck such as run-outs and bad decisions.
The idea that they even out, and all batsmen get the same, is extreme naivity.

both of which mean the same thing.

"Making excuses" is a phrase which basically is accepted to mean using invalid reasons to attempt to excuse.
And I wasn't doing that.

 

[Richard]

No, TEC, anomalies only come into consideration when it's a player Richard doesn't like...

No, anomalies only come into consideration
a) where they actually are anomalies and
b) where they're relevant
And, of course, the small matter of the fact that I don't "like" or "don't like" players because that action would be utterly pointless and, amazingly enough, no-one has ever managed to come-up with a reason why I would do such a thing.